Two, I guess I would say professional, commentaries on Dreger’s article. One by a transwoman, another by another intersexed individual.

It should be noted that Dreger herself seems to be a somewhat controversial person in her own circle of intersex organizations and individuals. Also, Exodus International and NARTH wholeheartedly support the book for study to understand how homosexuality can and should be ‘cured’.

I dealt with NARTH myself when I was a teenager and I was forced to undergo shock and noise aversion therapy in an attempt to make me ‘more masculine’ and to undo the attraction towards men that I have. These people have ENDORSED Bailey’s book. They more or less tortured me as a teenager, and they support the book. How on earth can I side with people that destroyed my childhood and left me mentally scarred?

In particular this quote.
“The specific issue was whether the book was transphobic,” Marks told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. “The judges looked at the book more closely and decided it was.”

I don’t find it sympathetic towards me at all, I feel dirty because of the way he talks about us. I find it degrading and insulting. I am NOT a homosexual, I dislike the terminology itself. I’m only using it when talking to you because you seem to have swallowed the theory hook line and sinker.

These quotes describe traits that some people consider negative, yes, but not in an unfriendly or insulting way. You seem to be saying you are a homosexual transsexual. The whole book is enormously sympathetic to homosexuals, part of why it was nominated for a Lambda Award. How you have failed to see that I don’t know.

Quotes that seem to indicate the only thing I’m good for is being a whore:
“Prostitution is the single most common occupation that homosexual transsexuals in our study admitted to.”

“Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they have their surgery.” p210

Quote that indicates that I’m likely to be a shop-lifter, and obsessed with clothing:
“As for shoplifting, homosexual transsexuals are not especially well suited as much as especially motivated. For many, their taste in clothing is much more expensive than their income allows.” p185

That I’m not marriage material, for the record. I*AM* happily married, and yes to a man, but I have a career, I did not become some stepford wife.
“Do they get married? … homosexual transsexuals are not very successful at finding desirable men willing to commit to them.” p209

“They wanted to get their surgery (if they had not had it yet) and meet a nice, attractive, and financially stable heterosexual man who would marry them and take care of them … When I was conducting my study of homosexual transsexuals, I routinely asked them if they knew anyone who had realized this dream. No one did.” p186

Quotes that we’re sex crazed men with vaginas that don’t care about our partner of the time.
“Gay transsexuals are boy crazy.” p178
“ability to enjoy emotionally meaningless sex appears male-typical. In this sense, homosexual transsexuals might be especially well-suited to prostitution.” p185

From an analytical point of view, I think I can see why he found what he did find. As far as I can tell, his source for ‘homosexual transsexuals’ was hitting up inner city gay bars. You’re going to get a VERY skewed sample if your only source of people is from one sort of environment. Not all of us live in the inner city and work the streets.

That’s where the rub is, you read the book, right? The language Bailey uses to describe both type 1 and type 2 is very…offensive to say the least. I think Conway and company feel they were made fun of, mocked and insulted by Bailey’s words in the book, and they think of it as returning the favor.

I don’t find anything in particular about the theories horribly offensive, but I do find Bailey’s way of describing various women as incredibly offensive in the book. We feel insulted, degraded and spat on by this man’s book, so the reactions are needless to say going to come from the gut rather than thoughtful counter-arguments from the mind.

It’s just silly reactionism, and Bailey is on the stick end, unfortunately. See? THIS is why I decided not to pursue a career in academia, oh so long ago!

The main issue is freedom of speech. And, I believe, is particularly important when in consequence to the exchanging of ideas, knowledge, and culture.

If she truly believes what she is backing, there would be no need to flee from what she has done. There would be no need to make excuses or hide behind rhetorical speech to mask henious behavior.

The effort thus far exerted to silence Bailey is deplorable.

KimBooSan, I don’t mind her challenging the credibility of a theory. I mind her trying to ruin Bailey’s life.